Well, my take is that depending on how long ago this would be from, it could end up like ruins in the Sahara, totally covered after several dust
storms. But, like you said, just total speculation. It was just the first thing I thought of!

Tough angle, prove to me it's a perfect cube/square/rectangle whatever. The side facing us is dark, and hard to tell if it's flat, the top is barely
visible, hard to make out if it's also square, and 3 sides are always facing away, so at this point it's - "what are the chances of a rock having
one relatively good square face?" The answer is - unlikely, but still possible. Sorry but I don't think there's much to debate. If it's really a
perfect box, we can't tell, and if it isn't, it doesn't matter.

OK, we can settle this once and for all! I am organizing a trip to Mars. If the US government can do it for billions, I am sure that common citizens
can do it for under $350 - using the government's propensity for over pricing. Of course at these prices each person will need to bring their own
snacks and extra clean undies.

Yes I realize the mis-match because of compression.Nasa masks the pics so you can't see the faces.I see the faces sometimes and try to present
them in a way that others can share the experience.I'm more positive than negative because I'm hunting information,discovery,answers.Here is a
species not found on Earth. Last week I was unaware of this species.If I waited for the negative comment people to find faces on Mars I'd die a slow
death.

Yes this is the pic of the "box" object,but other aspects of
it and how it fits in the big picture of falsifying pictoral data to withold evidence of Life on Mars by nasa.

Pulling random semi-face looking patterns out of the random chaos and calling them extraterrestrials?

There isn't anything in the photo that looks particularly extraterrestrial or terrestrial other than, maybe, the rocks themselves. I think it's
great that some folks spend alot of their free time sifting through the data and the images from the Mars rovers. And I still believe that NASA is
withholding information regarding UFO's. But what I'm hearing here has reached a whole new level of ridiculous.

People sift through the photos and post hundreds/thousands of images of random stuff that doesn't mean anything except someone's brain telling them
there's a pattern in the chaos. That's fine. But this has reached a point where people are willing to connect all the dots they can in order to
substantiate their own already-existing beliefs without considering the very normal potential explanations.

I know this is ATS and we can talk about, discuss, and debate the possibilities until our eyeballs fall out. But we can't just ignore the most
likely answer because we want to believe in X.

The most likely and probable scenario is that happenstance lighting conditions and positioning of the camera with relation to the object probably
combine to create an illusion of a solid cubicle shape. There is no reason to suggest this might be something of extraterrestrial or terrestrial
origin. Odd shaped rocks abound on earth as well as mars.. That's what happens after billions of years of water, wind, and sand erosion.

Naturally-occurring geometric shapes in nature do not necessarily imply any kind of alien connection, time travel/vortex, or proof of intelligent
design. In fact, geometric shapes in nature are quite normal and can be caused by a variety of very normal geologic processees'. The same geologic
processes that have affected, and continued to affect, planets like Earth and Mars.

I also think it's important to note that there isn't even any feasible way to determine whether or not it is even a cube to begin with. At least
not with this image alone from this one angle. It's quite possible that the shadowed part of the "cube" facing the camera juts out slightly. It
could be the same on the other side. There just isn't any way to tell with this image, alone. But it does appear to be part of the larger rock on
the left. And considering the erosion that appears to have shaped all of these rocks over time, we also know that those same erosive forces have
acted on this "cube" portion of the larger boulder.

When you consider the distorted, eroded shapes of the rocks we're seeing in the original photo, is it really so hard to believe that this could be
naturally-occurring? You can look at that large boulder, alone, and see the kind of immense erosive forces that have acted on that boulder over time.
It just doesn't seem so extraordinary to me when you consider the overall image for what it seems to show.. Not just the alleged cube.

Something else that is important to note..

Look at the large boulder
The side facing the camera.
Look how it tapers inward towards the base where it contacts the ground.
This causes part of the boulder to jut out along its outside edge just a couple inches from the ground.
The back end seems to jut out as well which seems to create the illusion of a cubicle form. I think what we're seeing here are erosive forces at
work and this at least partially proves this.

This could be all we're seeing on the back end, which combines with a flattened, eroded top that makes this look like a flattened cube when it really
isn't. Just my thoughts.

There is the familiar and unfamiliar when looking for faces on Mars pics. I exagerate them since most people miss them entirely.If I give them
a chance to see what I see it raises the possibility for them to experience the vision of life on Mars as being as real as life on Earth,but just very
different.If I am spoon-feeding images of faces to feed the masses and correct nasa's poor judgement at non-disclosure,then I'm doing a service.

If not,then I'm merely entertaining.I see Mars faces.Do you see them
too?

What I see in all of your photos are random patterns of rocks and shadows that are being processed by the human brain to pull familiar shapes and
humanoid faces out of the chaos. It only makes sense that you're finding faces in the randomness. Faces are one of the first things the brain
notices when tasked with making sense of complete randomness. This has been scientifically confirmed.

Pareidolia (pronounced /pærɪˈdoʊliə/) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being
perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on
records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- ("beside", "with", or "alongside"—meaning, in this context, something faulty or
wrong (as in paraphasia, disordered speech)) and eidolon ("image"; the diminutive of eidos ("image", "form", "shape")).

Carl Sagan hypothesized that as a survival technique, human beings are "hard-wired" from birth to identify the human face. This allows
people to use only minimal details to recognize faces from a distance and in poor visibility but can also lead them to interpret random images or
patterns of light and shade as being faces.

A 2009 magnetoencephalography study found that objects incidentally perceived as faces evoke an early (165 ms) activation in the ventral fusiform
cortex, at a time and location similar to that evoked by faces, whereas other common objects do not evoke such activation. This activation is similar
to a slightly earlier peak at 130 ms seen for images of real faces. The authors suggest that face perception evoked by face-like objects is a
relatively early process, and not a late cognitive reinterpretation phenomenon.

A more broad, but still applicable, term for this same phenomenon is "Matrixing".

Matrixing: a process by which we humans continually organize, order, align, or standardize, the un-organized, un-ordered, mis-aligned, or
non-standardized, allowing us to manage the chaos around us into something that is more beneficial to us.

Apophenia is the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. The term was coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad, who
defined it as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness".

I will say this though..
I almost see Apophenia as a derogatory term used by psychologists to describe and explain the tendency for an otherwise normal, healthy person to
believe in things like UFO's and the paranormal.

With regard to this particular psychological term, the overall assumption that UFO's, the paranormal, aliens, and conspiracy theories are just cases
of people running around connecting random dots is a pretty immense assumption to make. It excludes the factor of supporting evidence and only
considers the factors regarding the human mind.

In other words.. It's easier for the psychologists to call us normal people with crazy tendencies than to come up with some other more basic and
logical reason people believe in these things. Things like.. These things being real and not imaginary, for example.. In the meantime, they'll just
chalk it up to Apophenia involving people with too much time on their hands.

But ,anyway back to the BOX object...my present best guess is that it's another hack cover-up job by Nasa to disguise a face by blackening it beyond
recognition. As I showed you what a mailbox head looks like,I could show you over 20 faces in this pic that you wouldn't recognize because they
don't exist in your experience of earth animals to compare with them. I look for symetry,a simple test,since DNA favors symetry for highly evolved
living,moving beings. Some of them already have very squared heads and bodies(crawlers). I have seen much larger ANCIENT versions,like dinosaurs in
comparison that look like giant BOX HEDGES sitting on hills with faces(fossilized).

Self-Destruct,how many fingers and toes were you born with? 10 each probably. Even PLANETS and SUNS/stars tend toward spherical symetry.Because
DNA splits it favors symetry to replicate.This radio comedian(Fez Whatley/Ron and Fez Show/Sirius/XM) has a famed GAP between his teeth,which I
highlighted in white to make it easy for people to find.It's right there in the MIDDLE between his upper front teeth.It is an indication of symetry
in humans.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.